Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Please work yourselves into a rabid anti gay marriage frenzy! Froth at the mouth about the "threat" to the family and the traditional "institution" of marraige.

Obsess about the "gay agenda". Stomp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue unless CA voters write homophobia into our state constitution. Keep that singular focus and WHATEVER you do, DON'T listen to the Voters when they say they really couldn't care less about this issue.

Stick to your guns GOP! Public opinion clearly must be wrong and you know what is best!

That so-called majority of voters may "Say" they would rather hear about energy independence, health care, ending the war in Iraq, improving education and job opportunity. But you know what they REALLY want to hear about, is how you and only you, are all that stands between them and the HORROR of some same sex couple being able to visit each other in the hospital or file joint income taxes!

That way, while you desperately try to hide from your party's record of dismal, domestic, foreign policy, economic and strategic failures by fixating on all things gay; California Voters as well as the rest of America will give your party the election results you so richly deserve.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

It is hard to know what to be shocked at first. The all too common "slip of the tounge" over at Fox News of calling Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) "Osama", or the directly stated wish for his assassination.

To her credit Liz Trotta did come back on the air to apologize.

It is worth noting, that had this happened on MSNBC, and if Keith Olbermann made a similar "dumb joke" calling for the asassination of John McCain, and then apologized; Fox News would be running it nonstop and calling for the United States Secret Service to arrest him.

Monday, May 26, 2008

On this Memorial Day, there is so much that could be said about the valor, courage and sacrifce of all who have worn the Uniform of the United States. Yet I think today's New York Times Editorial does an incredible job exposing the unbelievable hypocricy of the Bush Adminstration and George W. Bush's complete failure as Commander-in-Chief. And how for the Republican Party "Supporting the Troops" is nothing more than an empty campaign slogan.----------------------------------------------------------

May 26, 2008New York Times Editorial

Mr. Bush and the G.I. Bill

President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.

Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.

At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.

Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.

Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.

This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. It opposes throwing ever more money at the Pentagon for defense programs that are wasteful and poorly conceived. But as a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.

By threatening to veto it, Mr. Bush is showing great consistency of misjudgment. Congress should forcefully show how wrong he is by overriding his opposition and spending the money — an estimated $52 billion over 10 years, a tiniest fraction of the ongoing cost of Mr. Bush’s Iraq misadventure.

As partial repayment for the sacrifice of soldiers in a time of war, a new, improved G.I. Bill is as wise now as it was in 1944.

Friday, May 23, 2008

I wasn't going to spend time on this topic. Only because it is one of those subjects where there seems to be far more emotion in the debate than logic. Yet a recent posting on a blog of a conservative friend of mine caught my eye. (http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com)

The headline of course was referring to the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban on same- sex marriage in our state. In his post he gushed with relief on that Wisconsin had passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in 2006;

“By amending the constitution, Wisconsin voters removed the possibility the courts would be equally activist here in expanding the definition of marriage. We do not have to fear that Wisconsin will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages by other states as well. “

Okay… So apparently the biggest “fear” that was facing the state of Wisconsin prior to 2006 was the looming terror of being “forced” to accept two consenting adults of no direct family relation living together in a committed and legally binding relationship?

Wow.

Now granted, it has been a few years since I lived in Wisconsin, but I was born there, and I did grow up there. Strangely enough, I don’t recall people living in “fear” about that.

As to the claim that "activist judges" are rewriting our laws circumventing the democratic process, this is nonsense. Very easily packaged nonsense, sound byte-ready nonsense, but still nonsense.

If in 1860 you had put emancipation to a popular vote, it would have failed. If in 1960 you had but integration to a popular vote it would have failed. For that matter if in 1776, you had but independence to a popular vote it would have failed. The reason we have a judicial branch is balance of powers, remember that one from social studies?

It's funny how those who are so upset about the "judicial usurping of democracy", don' t consider someone who wants to bring religion in the courtroom with the Ten Commandments to be an "activist judge." But that is neither here nor there.

And as far as these judges being "un-elected" who appointed them? Elected officials did. So the idea that judges striking down discrimination is undemocratic is just not true.

What is true is this. Saying that letting two people of the same gender get married would in anyway "redefine" the marriages of heterosexuals, is the same thing as saying that equal rights for racial minorities would "redefine" being white.

The marriage amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution is an insult the people and history of that great state, and does nothing to “defend marriage”

If my friend was truly interested in defending marriage in Wisconsin, then he should have pushed for a law making divorce, a far greater threat to marriage, much harder to get. Also adultery, a far greater threat to marriage should have been made punishable by criminal prosecution, fines and perhaps even jail time. Anyone in WI who makes a child out of wedlock should then by law be forced to marry the other parent. Or if they are already married legally adopt the child.

Funny how the amendment my friend is so thankful for, does none of the things I just listed. Clearly it was not enacted protect the people of Wisconsin from anything. It was designed solely to deny equal rights to some people in Wisconsin, and nothing more.

Whenever subject of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples is part of our national discourse conservatives always claim it is an "attack" on marriage and the family. So I decided to look up the word `attack' in the dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:

AttackPronunciation: &-'takFunction: verbEtymology: Middle French attaquer, from (assumed) Old Italian estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English stacatransitive senses1 : to set upon or work against forcefully2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously 4 : to set to work on5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate captureintransitive senses : to make an attack6: the act or action of setting upon with force or violence

Hmmm… to set upon or work against forcefully huh? Ok, so if we take that argument seriously, to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples; Not more rights, not any new rights that straight couples do not currently have, but ONLY the exact SAME rights, this would injure, damage and potentially even destroy heterosexual marriages and families?

Again... Wow. I guess I only have one question then. How?

Would gay marriage mean that straight couples would lose any of the 1,100 federal benefits and protections that they currently have? Does legal gay marriage mean straight couples can’t file joint tax returns, have, adopt or raise children, pass on social security survivor benefits, or make medical decisions for each other? Does the legalization of marriage for gays and lesbians mean that straight people can no longer marry, and those who are married must get divorced?

Would the marriages or families of any heterosexual change in any way?

The answer of course is no they wouldn't. But proponents of discrimination are rarely interested in facts. When faced with them ,they generally fire back with one of three arguments.

The first argument is that; Being gay is sinful because the bible says so.

Well ok, the bible has eight verses that talk about homosexual behavior, And over 360 that condemn heterosexual behavior. (Clearly God must think straight couples need more supervision.) But all this would only make sense if the United States was a theocracy where the church ruled the state. Which, it is worth mentioning would make divorce a criminal offense. My guess is the more than fifty percent of married heterosexual couples that avail themselves of divorce, are thankful this is not the case. And of course this entire debate is about CIVIL Marriage. NOT the religous sacrament of marriage administered by a church. No church will or could ever be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs.

The second argument is even more fun. Allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophile marriages, and who knows what else.

Yet the structure and definition of civil marriage is, and has only ever been about two and ONLY two consenting adults of no direct family relationship. So find me the person who truly wants to marry their dog, and for that matter, find me a dog who is over 18 years old, can read and then sign a marriage certificate, and can then say the words "I do". This argument is as ridiculous now, as it was when it was tried in opposition to interracial marriage over half a century ago.

The third argument used against gay marriage is actually a bit more revealing of the the thought process of many conservatives. They say that gay marriage cheapens or lessens the value of the institution of marriage in the eyes of society.

But since none of the marriage rights or benefits that straight couples have would change if gays were able to marry, what opponents of gay marriage are really saying is that letting gay couples marry cheapens their own marriages in their own eyes. Letting gays and lesbians get married means they now have a right that only heterosexuals had. And for some people that is unacceptable.

It's not just that some people want to prevent gays and lesbians from having equal rights, they want make sure that gays and lesbians have no rights at all. They see equal rights for everyone as an attack on them.

That's interesting. Even though the rights and benefits afforded to couples in “traditional marriage” clearly would not change in ANY way, some people firmly believe that their own marriage would lose value, and might even come to an end, if gay couples are given the same rights.

It suddenly occurred to me there is another word for someone who is irrationally fixed on the artificial preservation of inequality that they feel is in their favor. Merriam-Webster's dictionary has the same word for it.

BigotPronunciation: 'bi-g&tFunction: nounEtymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot1: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

This irrational nonsensical argument against equality in civil marriage is nothing more that the fear of losing what is seen as a civil superiority, coupled with the desire to take religious beliefs and codify them into civil law. It is bigotry, pure and simple. That is what is being “forced” upon the citizens of Wisconsin.

Attempts to legally create a second class citizen are not new. We have seem them before. They had different names though. The inquisition, Jim Crow, States Rights, Reich Racial Purity Laws, the blacklist. Like its predecessors, the “defense of marriage” is bigotry fueled by politically expedient fear. It is time we call it what it really is, an affront to everything our nation has ever stood for, and completely un-American.

Interestingly enough, a similar proposal to add discrimination to the California State Constitution has no chance of passing. Even Governor Schwarzenegger thinks it is a ridiculous idea.

Just as my friend is thankful that he need not "fear" the horror that my good friends Jody and Dennis, who after years of buidling life, a thriving small business and a family together can now make a public and legally binding affirmation of their relationship. Likewise, now thanks to our state Supreme Court they don’t have to fear that California “will be forced to recognize” Wisconsin's bigotry.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Jon Stewart as usual is the ONLY one in the media to call the Clinton "win" in West Virginia EXACTLY what it was.

Now I don't mean to make cruel jokes about the good people of West VA, but having spent some time there, I will say this; to claim that the Voters of West Virginia are somehow an indicator of how the rest of the nation would vote in the general election, might be true if this was the election of 1858, instead of 2008.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Democrat John Edwards is endorsing former rival Barack Obama, fresh signs of the party establishment embracing the likely nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.

Edwards was to appear with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as Obama campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.

The endorsement comes the day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in West Virginia. The loss highlighted Obama's work to win over the "Hillary Democrats" — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in large numbers before he exited the race.

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and the 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the race in late January.

Both Obama and Clinton immediately asked Edwards for his endorsement, but he stayed mum for more than four months. A person close to Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he wanted to get involved now to begin unifying the party. Obama also signed on to Edwards' poverty initiative, which was a major cause for Edwards in his campaign and since he left.

When he made his decision, Edwards didn't even tell many of his former top advisers because he wanted to make sure that he personally talked to Clinton to give her the news, said the person close to him. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has spoken favorably about Clinton's health care plan, did not travel with him to Michigan and is not part of the endorsement.